28 Comments on The release of al-Megrahi – brave, stupid or both?

Ben on Mon, 24th Aug 2009 3:44 pm


The ability to show compassion is a barometer of a civilised nation’s criminal justice system. While there is uncertainty about whether justice has been served, we know this man will die very soon. By allowing him to return to his family the Scottish Government have shown bravery in being compassionate where there is (rightly) an overwhelming desire for vengeance.

Hilary Goldsmith on Mon, 24th Aug 2009 4:32 pm


Neither brave nor stupid – this decision was appropriate and reasonable. The man was given a life sentence, and he has spent all of the rest of his life bar the last few weeks in prison.

I have been surprised by the vehemence of the outcry about his release. It smacks of a hunger for vengeance that I find deeply troubling. I am pleased to see the Scottish justice system stand up against this, and set a humane example, in the spirit of do-as-you-would-be-done-by.

The welcome home celebrations should have come as no surprise to anyone. I can’t imagine that Gordon Brown’s request to the Libyan government to keep things low key will have weighed with them at all – in fact it may have been received as something of a challenge.

My one regret in all of this is that al-Megrahi’s lawyers had to withdraw his appeal in order to enable his release. Whether or not he himself is guilty, there is clearly a huge question mark over who else was involved, and it may be difficult now for the truth to come to light.

Robert Green on Mon, 24th Aug 2009 4:57 pm


I too find this episode puzzling. But it seems to me that one has to take some account of the degree of doubt there seems to be over al-Megrahi’s conviction. The sharp change of position by the US and UK governments (from Iran to Libya), which itself invites sceptical questioning; the fact that some of UK relatives who have followed the twists of the case are not persuaded of al-Megrahi’s definite guilt; the apparently fragile nature of the original evidence; the emergence of potentially relevant evidence not considered by the court. Given all this, it seems to me reasonable for an outsider take the position of Oliver Miles, former UK ambassador to Libya, who describes himself as ‘agnostic’ about al-Megrahi’s guilt. Whether or not this should have been considered legally, it is surely a moral argument in favour of erring, if anything, on the side of leniency.

Clive Phillips on Mon, 24th Aug 2009 5:25 pm


The way in which we treat prisoners is one of the features which defines the humanity of a State. There was nothing to be gained by keeping a dying man in prison, no matter what his crimes.

For Christians, in particular, arguably there was a duty to release al-Megrahi at this time. (“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us “). It is unfortunate that Libya turned the release into a triumphal homecoming but that does not alter the rightness of the Scottish decision.

Maybe you should put politics aside and consider the ethical and religious dimensions. There’s more to a fulfilling life than politics.

Stephen on Mon, 24th Aug 2009 7:29 pm


I think political immaturity is the best bet for this foolish decision, combined with the SNP’s generally poor judgement on foreign affairs. I think many people’s judgement has also been clouded by the doubts (some legitimate, though not by any stretch conclusive) so many have over the conviction. Clearly though this should be irrelevant as long as the conviction is upheld. I agree wholeheartedly that a compassionate approach ought to have been one based on decent and humane treatment as the man served out his sentence, perhaps with appropriate facilitation of family visits from Libya. It strikes me as ironic that no one seems to have noticed that realistically, dying in prison was always a highly probable (and appropriate for the crime) outcome for a man sentenced to a minimum of 27 years at the age of 49. As a Scotsman i feel profoundly saddenned at this decision.

Bill Ellson on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 9:07 am


Matthew – Oh Dear!

“There do not seem to me to be any compassionate grounds for the early release.” Mr al-Megrahi is dying, releasing an elderly shoplifter is not a great deed of compassion, releasing someone who stands convicted of mass murder is.

“the Scottish Executive and Downing Street.” I think you may be referring to the Scottish Government.

“poor political judgement.” As Mr David T Read states in a letter published by the Herald this morning “Kenny MacAskill is accused of political naivety because, in his quasi-judicial role, he considered the evidence and came to the conclusion to which his legal training led him, and did not allow that process to be politically swayed. He could not control what use others made of his decision. How could he have second-guessed all those different personal and political reactions anyway? What role could such political input rightly have had in a judicial process?” http://tinyurl.com/npnf2r

“authorities in Scotland and London” The Scottish Government is based in Edinburgh.

“My hunch” Having failed to comprehend that Kenny MacAskill, although a politician, was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity you have naively embarked on a search for some political reasoning behind the decision. There is none to be found. However a little bit of research might have revealed that a delegation of US senators were in Tripoli earlier this month to discuss arms sales see: http://tinyurl.com/luzv78 . Now that visit was an interesting political decision deserving of far greater political analysis than it has thus far received.

carl allen on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 10:44 am


Whether or not it turns out to be a poor decision, he looked at the future and took a personal risk with this exercise of his authority.

Is or is he not what we want out of leadership?

rhian on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 11:10 am


No-one wants to be thought of as lacking in compassion and every case needs to be considered on its own merit; it would be arrogant for mere mortals to grant or deny compassion – there are greater forces at work. However as you say, the severity of this Terrorist crime deems this early release offensive to the relatives of those on pan-am103 and the population of Lockerbie even though terminal illness can be seen as punishment in itself..
But how duplicitous of MacAskill to claim that al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds when this purely was not the case and a deal was clearly negotiated by the usual suspect in good old Corfu It is pretty low to seek public commendation for fake compassion even if your hands are tied by Westminster and their oily political motives! The British public are being duped once again
Why is a decision with such important implications even ‘officially’ taken by one person? Anyone who has the slightest experience of Arabic culture could have predicted the heroes welcome; for MacAskill to have to pretend to be shocked at the reception in Tripoli is pathetic Has GB said anything yet? No – but he can’t can he! At least Cameron + Clegg have spoken out clearly on the matter… Sit on the fence Gordon and drive another nail in your coffin!..rant rant.. by September all will be forgotten ..except in Lockerbie maybe..

Susmita on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 11:18 am


“If that isn’t sufficient basis for a life-means-life sentence it is difficult to see what would be.”

Exactly.

Anand on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 11:25 am


The evidence upon which he was convicted was as flimsy as Barry George’s conviction for the murder of Jill Dando. The real scandal is that he was convicted in the first place.

carl allen on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 11:29 am


The inevitable furore that descends on the poor chaps head indicates that it was either a personal decision or he was blackmailed into the decision.

I shall have faith that he was not blackmailed unless there are indications to the contrary.

jickemp on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 12:36 pm


Can you imagine Brown or Alex Salmond standing up and explaining that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was released to secure an energy contract, or that “the terrorist atrocity was a while ago now, and we need to build better relations with Libya anyway”?

All I can say is that I look forward to the time when Labour Ministers are able and willing to be honest, and initiate well informed public debates around such important strategic issues affecting the UK in the world. I fear it will not be until they are in their anecdotage.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:01 pm


Fair point. But our shallow 24 hour media don’t make it easier for politicians to be brave.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:02 pm


I wonder if we will ever know Carl – maybe in the memoirs?

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:02 pm


Fine, but that is not the reason being offered by the Scottish Executive

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:03 pm


Wow – you agree with me. I will demand extra sweets from your office on my return.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:04 pm


I share your frustration Rhian. David Aaronovitch is (as usual) very good about this in today’s Times

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:11 pm


OK Bill. Sorry if I got my wording wrong. But as I am sure you will recognise I am far from being the only one who finds the decision inexplicable and Mr MacAskill’s explanation far from convincing. David Aaronovitch is very good on this in Today’s Times

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:12 pm


Thanks Stephen. Did you read David Aaronovitch in The Times this morning? Very good I thought.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:14 pm


Thanks Clive. I really respect your perspective on this. But why do we show this compassion to someone found guilty of killing 270 people and not to other incarcerated and sick murderers – a point made by David Aaronovitch in this morning Times.

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:15 pm


Thanks Ben. But if the issue if doubt over this conviction why is Mr MacAskill denying this is a motive – is it just too dangerous to say?

matthewtaylor on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:18 pm


Thanks Hilary. I guess I have to ask the question posed by David Aaronovitch – would you apply similar compassion to someone convicted of the murder of women or children, say Ian Brady?

carl allen on Tue, 25th Aug 2009 6:22 pm


There is so much innocent blood spilt by so many who are convinced that violence is right meet and just, that perhaps compassion is for the dying and not the deed.

kim james on Wed, 26th Aug 2009 1:06 pm


As far as I am concerned the statement of the Scots secretary of State as to the reasons for the release on compassionate grounds is adequate. What is abhorrent is the intervention of United States Secretary of State Clinton in the affairs of another country in what appears an effort to put pressure on a sovereign state. In another time this country stood up for its independence – for example the refusal to follow the USA into Vietnam. Today we slobber like Labradors and roll on our backs, waving our paws to show compliance. Oh dear Mrs Clinton we are so sorry.
I offer congratulations to the Scots for letting compassion take precedence over revenge. It would take at least two or three pages to detail all the flaws in the evidence presented in front of the three judges in Amsterdam. Had the trial been in Scotland before a Judge and Jury it would have been stopped the moment the Maltese shopkeeper had made three different statements describing his recognition of Al Mehgrahi let alone the subsequent recognition that he had been shown a photograph of the Libyan before he was asked to identify him. Plus the Swiss electronic company’s retraction of the identification of the timing device as one of their making. Plus the subsequent recognition that the scientific expert had been exposed in previous trial as anything but an expert, et cetera et cetera. It is not surprising that the present head of the FBI is so annoyed, he was previously the Lawyer presenting the flaky evidence at the trial. He should be happy that Al-Mehgrahi has been released on compassionate grounds and not being granted a retrial in front of a judge and jury under Scots jurisdiction.

TimHood on Thu, 27th Aug 2009 7:47 am


Firstly, the decision: it was wrong. Justice is all about the scales- weighing and measuring. On the one side, the fact that the closure experienced by hundreds of the bereaved has been shattered, lives that were beginning to recover risk being consigned to further grief, depression and worse. We don’t know exactly how bad it will be because we are not the victims but the decision clearly risks ruining lives. Almost anyone who has experienced trauma and grief will say that while time heals, wound once re-opened can seem as fresh and painful as on the day they were made.

On the other, the feelings of the convicted man and his family, along with the Scottish government’s desire to improve society and nurture compassion. All very important and worthy of consideration. But not enough. The decision risks causing too much suffering to too many people, something that would not normally be such a weighty argument in many other cases.

As for the reasons behind the decision: I just can’t see the SNP taking the heat for Labour and Gordon Brown like that. I can’t believe let themselves get set up as a patsy so easily.

matthewtaylor on Fri, 28th Aug 2009 12:51 pm


Thanks again Tim. I agree with the last point. The question now is whether this issue will go away. Will there be new revelations in the Sundays and what happens in al-Mehhari is still alive in 12 months and living of the income of his ‘why I am innocent’ book (as I strongly suspect he will be)

jickemp on Tue, 1st Sep 2009 8:51 am


I agree that the mainstream media obstruct informed debate more often that not. Moreover, I understand why New Labour especially have founded their approach to media management on the assumption that the media are mostly hostile / duplicitous. But how can things change if Labour don’t force the debate. persist, and lead? We know they can, they have done so before for good and ill.

matthewtaylor on Wed, 2nd Sep 2009 11:15 am


Thanks. I agree

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!